Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#71

Post by FalconSensei »

chadash wrote: post #7
hedora wrote: post #2

Similar shenanigans are the reason I cancelled Disney+. I’ll pay a monthly fee for your entire back library. Otherwise, no thanks. Also, what’s the ethical issue with pirating content that is not for sale? I’d love to see a copyright overhaul that formalized abandonware and extended it to back catalogs of film and music. That way, people could legally torrent everything currently missing from these streaming platform…

> Also, what’s the ethical issue with pirating content that is not for sale?... (Offline-only distribution would count as “abandoned” in this regime.) Let's say I author a book and sell it as a paperback, but decide for whatever reason that I don't want to sell an e-book. Would you apply the same reasoning there? Is it ethical for you to torrent an unpaid for e-book copy because you've decided that's more convenient…

You are right that someone could buy the physical book and them torrent the digital version. But I would consider:

1 - You already forfeited you digital sales because you decided not to have an ebook release. If you make public that there are no plans for a digital release, and not the case that's just delayed compared to print.

2 - Digital books tend to be cheaper. Makes a huge difference for people that read 10 books a month.

3 - Print takes space, which many people might not have. I'm not going to buy a print book at a higher price, just to have to go straight to a used book store and sell it there, so I can torrent the ebook - which would be illegal anyway.

Same goes for TV shows and movies. Having dozens of blu-ray+dvd combos is not feasible.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#72

Post by devmunchies »

reaperducer wrote: post #66
devmunchies wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you missed the part that says "So, to date, a complete, uncut Hanna-Barbera collection has never been released on DVD in the US"

you missed the part that says "So, to date, a complete, uncut Hanna-Barbera collection has never been released on DVD in the US" No, I didn't. You missed the part of my comment which stated: "And even then, there are huge gaps in DVDs. Probably half of VHS tapes made it to DVD."

But your solution was to own our media. But i have to buy old VHS to legally watch the censored episodes? That's not a solution.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#73

Post by jabroni_salad »

devmunchies wrote: post #57
khazhoux wrote: post #36

Mouse in Manhattan is a wonderful short. The storytelling, the pacing, and the orchestral score are magical. But there is the small issue of Jerry falling into a vial of shoe polish and then popping his head out -- in full blackface. Yup, that's not allowed today. I hope they just correct that (but without messing up the music) rather than outright ban it.

he accidentally falls in black dye though. Of course his face would be black. why is that bad?

I'm going to assume that in this conversation you have not seen the original content and are responding to the text here in a vacuum. Here is the specific symbolism being used so that you may understand the context.

https://i.imgur.com/X39LVNF.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Minstrel...

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#74

Post by me_me_me »

codyb wrote: post #39
me_me_me wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethics? I don't care too much if mouse company gets more money for their empire from me or not. Lets be real, that money more less goes to people that have nothing to do with people that create shows/content etc. But thats beside the point, I don't care much about it. I am adult, I earn money and at this point in my life my time IS worth money. If the effort/cost of watching a show it greater than firing up torrents,…

"Ethical/lawful or not I don't care" -me_me_me Parody? I'm not sure. Seems like an attitude I'm relatively happy isn't super common in society. If I make a book, I don't "owe you an effort" just cause you don't want to make it available in a format you'd like to consume. And that doesn't give you the right to steal it from me. Now certainly everyone should live under a set of guidelines, no one should be certain effo…

> If I make a book, I don't "owe you an effort" just cause you don't want to make it available in a format you'd like to consume.

Of course you don't.

> And that doesn't give you the right to steal it from me.

First of all I am not stealing, you haven't lost anything. Secondly you not making effort to distribute your book means you don't care too much about selling your book now do you?

Anyhow, that's comparing apples to oranges. I support indie devs/book writers/music because I directly support the creator(s).

This whole situation is bit different when we are talking about pirating a movie that made $1b in profits.

> But if you want to use Betamax and it's going to be expensive for me to support it, I don't owe you that. And it doesn't make it okay for you to just take my work because you will only use your own format.

But that completely not my argument. I want to have an easy access to what you make. If you only sell your book after I install an ad plugin into my browser then fuck you. If i care about reading it I will pirate.

This is a case of an author actively working against access to the product for no reason. And the author is a multinational corporation raking in profits.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#75

Post by FalconSensei »

gonehome wrote: post #50
jayrot wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purely devil's advocate would be someone along the lines of -- just because it isn't for sale now doesn't mean it might never be. Pirating it now deprives the owner of some amount of ability to make money from it in the future. Pretty flimsy, imo.

This is hard to get into without context. Copyright (and patents) exist "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts for the public's benefit, the means is a limited time monopoly. The limited time rights are intended to be…

> Why does someone need to be incentivized to create after they're dead?

That means if I spend a couple years writing a book, instead of spending more time with my family or working on something else, and get hit by a car and die the day after the release... my family is left with nothing?

My incentive to create would be that my family would have some earning even after my death (if I'm older or sick, for example)

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#76

Post by me_me_me »

gonehome wrote: post #58
codyb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ethical/lawful or not I don't care" -me_me_me Parody? I'm not sure. Seems like an attitude I'm relatively happy isn't super common in society. If I make a book, I don't "owe you an effort" just cause you don't want to make it available in a format you'd like to consume. And that doesn't give you the right to steal it from me. Now certainly everyone should live under a set of guidelines, no one should be certain effo…

The OPs argument is bad/stupid, but there is a real argument to be made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028392

Your comment is bad/stupid. You are bringing nothing to this discussion.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#77

Post by reaperducer »

devmunchies wrote: post #65
reaperducer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't they just show trigger warnings Or people could just grow up and realize that you can't judge people who lived a hundred years ago by today's standards. Imagine what ordinary things you do every day that people a hundred years from now will consider a social crime and want you banned or cancelled for.

I completely agree, but some parents might not want their kids to watch old stuff. A content advisory is a good middle ground, since it doesn't censor the past while giving the streaming service a free pass.

Or parents could pay more attention to what their children are watching. Just like when all we had was antenna TVs.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#78

Post by reaperducer »

devmunchies wrote: post #72
reaperducer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you missed the part that says "So, to date, a complete, uncut Hanna-Barbera collection has never been released on DVD in the US" No, I didn't. You missed the part of my comment which stated: "And even then, there are huge gaps in DVDs. Probably half of VHS tapes made it to DVD."

But your solution was to own our media. But i have to buy old VHS to legally watch the censored episodes? That's not a solution.

I presented no solution. I lamented the current situation.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#79

Post by gonehome »

FalconSensei wrote: post #75
gonehome wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hard to get into without context. Copyright (and patents) exist "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts for the public's benefit, the means is a limited time monopoly. The limited time rights are intended to be…

> Why does someone need to be incentivized to create after they're dead? That means if I spend a couple years writing a book, instead of spending more time with my family or working on something else, and get hit by a car and die the day after the release... my family is left with nothing? My incentive to create would be that my family would have some earning even after my death (if I'm older or sick, for example)

A problem better solved by life insurance than copyright.

That said, you'd still have the 5yr or whatever amount of time. I don't think tying it to the life of the author makes sense. It was just an example of how the spirit of the law got twisted from 'incentive to create' to 'rights holders should profit forever from their IP'.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#80

Post by function_seven »

dbreunig wrote: post #51

Some wishful thinking here... > For one thing, the promise of being able to stream the ENTIRETY of the classic shorts could generate a tremendous amount of publicity for Max, in the process providing strong incentive for T&J collectors, animation fans, historians, and adults to subscribe to the new platform. That is a very small audience compared to the very large audience of families who would be upset if the their…

> That is a very small audience compared to the very large audience of families who would be upset if the their kids auto-played into unexpected blackface.

Your point is valid regarding the size of the niche here, but there are probably a thousand other niches that would combine—long tail fashion—into a good chuck of market share.

As far as families being upset about their kids auto-playing into offensive content, HBO has already solved for this. They have Sex and the City and The Sopranos on that platform.

Mark the naughty T&J episodes as "TV-MA", and a kid-filtered view won't show them, right? (I guess the question is whether they have this ability per-episode, or only at the series level)

Post reply on HN